CP+ 2013: Interview with Canon's Masaya Maeda

There will be a Canon EOS 70D, but the future of semi-pro DSLRs is probably full-frame, says Masaya Maeda, Managing Director and Chief Executive, Image Communication Products Operations at Canon. However, while he says new concepts are needed to save the compact camera, he doesn't see larger sensors as being the answer for the mass market.

No room for large sensor compacts

'Some say the digicam market is mature and that smartphones are eating into it. I would say this is true. In terms of the compact camera segment, new concepts are needed,' Maeda says: 'The PowerShot N is part of our response. Of course we have other things in the works but I can't talk about it yet'.

However, he ruled out the idea of a larger sensor camera along the lines of the Sony RX100 to offer more of an image quality distinction between smartphones and compact cameras. 'I think the market does exist but it wouldn't be very large. We think we have a good balancing point in terms of price, image quality and size. Lots of other combinations are possible, but, once you go below APS-C the next logical size is 1/2.3 inch', he says.

'Silicon conductor technology is still advancing. The answer may change, but 1/2.3" is the answer at the moment. Users want to shoot at greater distances and want to get better photos in low light - these are the needs. There will always be a gap between smartphones and compact cameras in those respects.'

APS-C - the step-up architecture

'My idea is that, if you increase the size, you go with APS-C - that's the architecture that allows low light performance. That was the reason I put an APS-C sensor in the PowerShot G1 X and the EOS M - for the time being, that's the standard.'

And, he believes, customers do understand that there's better image quality to be had. 'If you look at sites like Instagram and other sharing sites, the ones that are getting the most likes and the most comments about the photography are the ones taken with a DSLR or dedicated compact camera, and there's discussion about "how did you get that?" and the answer is that it's with a dedicated camera.'

Despite this understanding, he concedes that the EOS M hasn't yet been fully able to exploit this market. 'Looking at worldwide results we've seen users are limited to certain regions - we're seeing very positive sales in Japan and South East Asia, looking beyond that we haven't established market share yet.'

'The concept of the EOS M is to make an interchangeable lens camera as small as possible while retaining the quality we would expect from an EOS product. It must be able to support a wide range of lenses - without that support, there's no point making it. Looking at the data, we're not seeing the EOS-M users making use of a variety of lenses. So one of the challenges is to roll-out a lineup of attractive lenses - that is our response to encourage people to use them.'

The future for semi-pro

Now that full frame is appearing in cameras the size and price of the 6D, the future of APS-C at the semi-pro level is in doubt, he says: 'That's something we're considering at the moment. From our semi-pro users there's still demand for APS-C but in the future, I think we will see an increase in the number of full-frame models.' Either way, that doesn't close the door on an EOS 70D though - when asked when we can expect one, Maeda promises: 'some day in the future. Without fail.'

Comments

Canon needs a response to the sensors in Nikon's D3200 (Sony) and D5200 (Toshiba.) They crush the 7D, let alone the Rebel series of cameras. I gave up waiting and moved to a Nikon full frame D600, which cost about a $1000 less than I paid for the 7D three years ago, and $500 less than the 6D.

As a longtime Canon user, these comments are very discouraging. Canon is like the tail trying to wag the dog (the market) and it's just not working. The EOS M is a flawed product and for Canon to base any type of market strategy on its sales is equally flawed.

The low-end of the point-and-shoot market will succumb to smartphones, but big-sensor compacts have a lot of life left in them. As long as they aren't slow as molasses. As long as they aren't as big as entry-level SLRs.

Like Vartkes, I have a Sony RX100 (I passed on the M and the G1 X) and it's a marvel. The last time I even touched my Canon SLRs was to make sure they were secure in the camera bags I'd placed them in before putting them in my closet.

I've been involved in photography now since 2007, all digital. I take better pictures than someone new at it, but am a long way from being consistent in a variety of lighting situations. I am an intermediate.

As an amateur who shoots almost daily, I quit using point and shoots and video cameras. Done. I use my Iphone 4s for snapshots/video, and for quality I use a Nikon D7000. (I had some Rebels, which are just as good, but I happened to get a great deal on a Nikon).

Everything else, to me, is a no-go. I won't buy them. I tried them (4/3, etc. Mirrorless), but it's too much of a compromise. I want a quality DSLR and a quality smart phone. I won't walk around with a P&S in one pocket and a phone in the other. The P&S days are numbered, and a mirrorless with a large sensor can't fit in pockets.

Google "travel zoom", "super zoom" etc. Those kinds of cameras do things your phone won't, and PEOPLE BUY THEM IN LARGE NUMBERS.

I'll be with you on FF someday, as soon as Nikon makes a 600mm FF lens that doesn't cost $8,000 and weigh 5 lbs. Until then, I'll soldier on with my compromised m43 system, which absolutely kills FF in functionality at minimal cost.

The vast majority of even enthusiasts and pros let alone the average user don't want or need to use 600mm and therefore will never miss it on FF. Most photographers will miss FFs superior resolution, DR, noise performance, shallower DOF and overall look a lot more than they will miss more easily shooting at 600mm.

Then there is Telecoverters and DX crop mode on Nikons both of which cut into the reach advantage of M4/3s. Plus Canon and Nikon both have decent options for a travel zooms both for FF and APS-C. Then there is the fixed lens super zoom cameras which are also a good choice and can make a good companion to a FF DSLR. A m4/3s system is still a good maybe even better option for travel though even if you don't want crazy telephoto since it will be an overall smaller and lighter package. It's all about what an individual is willing to carry.

The IQ improvement from FF over m43 is undeniable but miniscule. It is not the deciding factor for most users. Telephoto capability, price, size, and weight are. The differences there are not miniscule, but huge. You could give FF cameras away, and many users would still buy into mirrorless and APS-C systems, because it is the only way to get telephoto lenses at a reasonable cost and weight.

Josh154 is doing an excellent job parroting comments that are salted into these forums by representatives of manufacturers who want to sell $5,000+ lenses indefinitely into the future. Maybe the comments sound intelligent to Josh154, or professional, or whatever. But the reality is that most people don't need or want FF cameras. FF has great IQ, and prohibitively expensive and heavy telephoto lenses, which yes, we do use out here in the field.

I think that's going to far, as the majority of uses will be better served with an advanced Bridge camera or CSC. The reason there is no future need for APS-C DSLRs is simple- a sensor like the D800's lets you have all the resolution you want need with crop lenses. Future iterations at 50MP+ will offer even more. Then only the body size is the issue, so you could shrink it and offer grips for larger lenses, like the EM-5.

I think we have different definitions of hiking. It sounds more like you're planning on "going for walks with a camera" as I'd describe it.Anyway, you're at about 4kg, not including accessories and a bag to stash it in.

I put together a m4/3 kit covering the same range of focal lengths (and then some), with good glass. Pana 7-14, Pana 12-35, Pana 35-100 and Oly 75-300 with an OM-D comes to 1.82kg, and about 60% of the cost. Or, to more closely match the focal lengths.Pana 7-14, Oly 12-60 with adaptor, Oly 75-300, Oly 12mm and an OM-D. This also weighs about 2kg.

This just leaves two questions.

1) Will it be possible to tell the difference between the photos from the two systems. Without a giveaway such as exif or MP count, I think it would be pretty hard to pick which system took which photos.

2) What to do with my spare 2.2kg? I could take a spare OM-D body, the Oly 60mm macro, a flash, LED macro arms, the 25mm f1.4 Panaleica, an iPad and a can of Coke.

As long as your definition of 'walks with a camera' means averaging 20 miles/day over 7-10 days, then yes, that's what I'm doing. I do it every year. It's great. Last time I went, the total weight of my backpack, camera and tripod was 19.5 kilos. You're worried about 4 Kg. Please.

In the end, you're a professional photographer, so your trips will be built around your gear. I'm not a pro photographer. I'll regularly go on dedicated photo excursions, but usually the camera comes when I'm doing other things. eg: when I go to uni I'll take my iPad in a small bag, but because the m4/3 kit is so small I can also squeeze the OM-D, macro, 12-50 and fisheye and flash in the outer pocket (STM Scout). If I'm working, I can take the OM-D in a pocket, or in my backpack, etc. Or, as I pointed out, I can simply take more toys, spare bodies, etc.

Don't agree about smartphones. I've had an iPhone 4, I now have a Galaxy S3 and they just aren't serious picture-taking machines. No fast lens, no zoom, no RAW, pictures that look - lifeless. It's good for taking photos of a whiteboard after a meeting.

I have a pocketable-experts-compact (Canon S95 or Sony RX100) in my bag with me at all times (except when I have a DSLR).

No, I actually meant 20 miles/day. Did you look up the trails? My longest day is 23, shortest day is 12... this one will actually end up around 18/day. When I did a section of the South West Coast Path in 2010 that was 20/day. Very brutal.

Your blind test would only work if I were taking the photos. Any hack can make a 5D3 look bad, and vice versa. When I upgraded from my 20D to 40D to 5D2 I really didn't notice a whole lot of difference right away, but now whenever I have to go back and work with one of those 20D or 40D RAW files it looks disastrous.

That's great that you can take your camera in a pocket on trips, and that's what those cameras are for. I just shake my head when I see all these people complaining about the weight of the latest SLRs, as though they're meant to be carried in your pocket too. Somebody below even called them "2 pound clunkers". Ooh, 2 pounds! Scary. These people must be the biggest weaklings on the planet.

No real answers my APS-C shooter questions: will Canon be able to came with a APC-C better sensor (than the murky one in 7D and 6x(x)D line) and when they will replace 7D (or will they came with an consistent improvement over 60D)... Associating the cripple 6D with semipro in the same sentence, puahhh ... 6D is all hype and no use, cramped and crippled. Canon has no respect for my wishes and I reward them with my (closed) wallet. And weep over my 4 years old camera that loses breath @ISO 1600 and a bag of lenses. And all this M discussion is a distraction. Still, it may be even worse, Canon starting in phone business ...

TheOman, I think you're correct. I just got a 7D and I'm likely to be using it for probably at least 10 years.

FF is definitely not something that I have any interest in and I've got about $2500 sunk into lenses that won't work with a 4/3 sensor and probably make no sense at all with the M, so, apparently they're OK with me and others that like long lenses leaving. Because I won't be buying a FF camera if it's replacing my crop sensor.

Perhaps this is way to test the waters, he knows that there is a strong contingent of Nikon/Canon users waiting for a D300s/7D upgrade. It seems that both Canon and Nikon are dragging there feet in regard to the high-end APS-C follow-on products. Throwing the D600 and the 6D out there prior to the 7D and D300s upgrades may have been part of this testing the market of a FF upgrade path for high-end APS-C bodies. I don't think either cameras made a big enough bite into semi-pro users to give either company a clear indication as to what will happen if they abandon their current semi-pro lines. They also have to consider the investment customers have in EF-S and DX glass, suddenly that market will drop out for the current owners. I do think that the sales of the 2 new FF's was not met with as much gusto as they had anticipated, nor did a sufficient number of 7D/D300s users switch to them. Neither company wants a marketing blunder and each are hoping for the other to make the first move

About a decade ago Nikon had a clueless bozo for a CEO.As a result of his forecast of "the world will never need a FF camera" I bought a 5D and many L lenses. Well, the shoe is now on our feet!Canon has the bozo leading its imaging business. It will soon realise the damage and dump this bozo too. BTW I still shoot the 5D and waiting for a real upgrade to it. Meanwhile I bought a Sony RX-100 for my pocket. Really cool camera.

I should have used the phrase "a competitive upgrade".No doubt 5D3 is a huge upgrade technically over 5D BUT that is not good enough in the current competitive environs. When i bought the 5D at $ 3,800 it was the only game in town for me

Yes, losing how? Canon's dSLR and lens sales were much higher than Nikon's last year. Only gadget junkies buy cameras based on dxomark's "tests". The average user is not post processing images or shooting raw, or pushing exposures 5 stops.

I'm curious as well. Canon still has very good lenses and the lens system is primarily how they keep people buying the bodies. The 7D is nowhere near bad enough to justify dumping thousands of dollars worth of lenses.

Its NOT about dumping lens, but his Statement effectively makes BUYING EXPENSIVE EF-S lens a bad idea. I "was" looking at a $700 15-85mm IS, but no more, as I don't believe there will be much future left in Canon's APS-C lines of camera.

I'm a proud owner of EF-S Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS and I recommended to all my friends over the EF 24-105L on APS-C camera....but no more.

From today on, 24-105L has more leg than 17-55. The entire VALUE of EF-S lens is in question @this point. Ditto the EF-S 60mm vs EF 100mm Macro debate. No sense for me to invest in EF-S lens.

I just ran into a hobbyist in La Jolla who was dismayed when he learned his T2i had not come with an AF movie mode. The camera market is overly segmented to create demand by locking consumers in that Canon now finds it is on the outside looking longingly at the smart phones whom he thinks are no equal to his Rebels. But for the vast public cell phones r just fine. The market for $2000 FF is not there unless they offer a 5D3 at that price. Canon will shrink to an overpriced for amateurs FF only company in five to ten years unless they can profitably compete by offering a pocket size quality camera that won't break budgets. The reason they've succeeded so far is the digital age was new. But not any longer.

NO, I'd not buy FF as replacement for my 7d = APS-C offers a crucial reach advantage over FF when one is uising longer FLs lenses; Canon's decision to abandon APS-H format in their Pro-line is a huge mistake from the point of view of wildlife/action shooters !!

(nikon) DX lenses on a FX body, when the sensor has the same pixel density as the dx body, is the same as using and dx body. The price question, as more they do FFs, the price will low, there will be no need for and aps-c sensor on a DSLR.Sorry guys but cost/speed will just get the space on the FF market.We have aps-c and ff until now because they wanted us to pay much more for the FF, as the price competion goes the FF will be standard again as in film eras.

APS-C is about 40% of FF. 40% of APS-C is about 1" sensor. 40% of that is about 1/1.7" sensor. Still above 1/2.33". Maeda is just bad at counting steps. Not that 40% step actually makes sense, it decreases image cercle just barely. Reasonable steps would be:1) FF - for pro/legacy lens and "money no object"/status markets2) 4/3", about half of imaging circle of FF, can be produced on better technology - as Oly 4/3 sensors are - for mass interchangeable lens market, where size, weight and price matter3) 2/3", half of imaging circle of 4/3", can be produced on better technology compared to 4/3 - for enthusiast/upmarket fixed-lens cameras with 7x-25x zooms of various brightness4) 1/3", shared with smartphones, produced on best technology possible (probably shared with DRAM/SRAM and probably actually having embedded RAM for framebuffer) - for daytime superzooms and embedded fixed lens cameras.

This would produce clear market separation, without significant cannibalization.

Noogy, we just know what we like and are a bit appalled that he's apparently not interested in our money anymore. I can see paring down the APS-C cameras to one or two lines, but eliminating it is going to pretty much lose all the wildlife photographers and probably all the sports guys as well.

There's an entire generation of photographers that learned on the format that he's about to chase away. Doesn't seem to me, to be a wise strategy.

So, Canon CEO still doesn't understand compact camera's market. Nearest future will be for large sensor cameras, just like RX100. Canon G1X still lacks speed, and in 2013 is ridiculous. Same problem with Eos-M and very poor interface experience, at the same time.

C'mon boy, it's time to sleep.I don't mind "trolling".Simply I don't waste my time.I don't agree with CEO's statement, I'm a professional photographer who needs even smaller and quetier cameras than DSLR. And Canon (as Nikon) is failing, in this market, right now.

In real life use, EOS M shows horrible autofocus system. Even some P&S cameras that use contrast detection are better than EOS M. Dynamic range is below average. Handling is mediocre. Canon has a long way to go to reach the quality and performance of top rated Olympus/Sony/Panasonic mirrorless cameras.

The 6D is a joke. It's too stripped down in features to be taken as a serious full frame camera. Canon needs to give us something we can really sink our teeth into. Something like the Nikon D600, but without the dust and oil splatter issues.

@Josh, that kind of thinking has never deterred Nikon from offering full featured cameras in their semi pro line. Canon has always taken the view that they need to strip their semi pro cameras down so as to preserve their pro market and it's why they're getting beat so badly in the market by Nikon.

Jon_Doh, got anything to back that up with? Canon was the first to offer a sub $2k camera back in 2003, and I used it up until recently. It was a solid performer that I used for years to get good pictures. I don't recall having seen any features missing that I actually needed.

Canon did do that with the Rebel line, but honestly, the Rebel is there primarily for those that don't need the extra features or who don't have the money for good lenses otherwise.

So from this interview, I think we can pretty much say goodbye to the thought of 7DII. 7D will be one of a kind, a legend, it served well when APS-C was still a dominating sensor choice of enthusiast whose budget was under $2K. Time has changed now, FF is the future. If you want fast fps and rugged body, 1DX or 5D3 are your choices. Canon never pledged to keep enthusiast cameras under $2K. Just like all the new EF lenses introduced in the past few years, L or not, all seem to be priced much higher than previous versions. Therefore, Canon has already made it clear: if you are into serious photography, you need to spend big bucks. $2K is the clear cut mark for serious camera bodies. Below it, you get all those bodies that you will always feel they got compromised.

You are making assumptions based on incomplete evidence. In any case a future FF DSLR landscape will not just have a 1DX or 5DIII as the alternatives, neither is $2K a cut off point that is set in stone.

Of course, this is my own interpretation based on what I have read so far. I am sure 1DX and 5DIII won't be the only pro grade FF bodies from Canon. Once they phase out 7D, there will be one more in between 5D and ID series. 5DIII price probably will be knock down a little bit by that time, close to $2K. A 2D/3D/4D or whatever will be a 7D in full frame.

$2K in also my own assumption, based on the recent price trend.

Anyway, this is what I think how Canon will execute in the new few years. Other companies will have different strategies to try to dethrone Canon, and they are doing a pretty good job by using an old strategy: divide and conquer!

In a different recent interview Canon said they were working on a 7D2 though so I think you are reading this wrong. They did mention that it wasn't coming right this moment though and also that it would evolve into some special new way (ASP-H???? probably not though, since they'd need like 32MP to get good density) and also inherit from upper level (5D3 AF?). It may be that the 7D3 never arrives though or goes to APS-H. Perhaps by that time the 5D4 will have both density and speed and take over fully?

I will trust the words coming out of the mouth of MD & CEO than anybody else.

If indeed there will be a 7DII, it gotta be now and should have been last year, not in the near future. Product cycle for this kind of camera is 2.5 to 3.5 years, by that time, FF will rule all but the entry level DSLR market.

Don't hold your breath on any future development of APS-H. It is a stop gap between full frame and Canon's version of APS-C. The reason Canon's APS-C is 1.6x while all others are 1.5x is because this APS-H format (1.3x).

Canon should dump the M and jump into the m4/3 format. Though their sensor technology currently can't compete with what's in the OM-D or GH3, loyal Canon dSLR users looking to downsize or for a compact second body will likely find Canon's offerings attractive. Especially if they included an EF-S/EF to m4/3 adapter.

Additionally, unlike EOS M, a Canon m4/3 body would be a product compatible with a growing format.

And unlike EOS M lenses, Canon m4/3 lenses might appeal to not only Canon users, but to Oly and Panasonic users as well.

Why in the world would they jump head first into a completely saturated market? Better to differentiate themselves rather than not only coming to the party late, but coming to a party that is already bursting at the seems.

That idea only works if you believe that 1) the M4/3 format is the best format for an APS-C replacement; 2) that throwing your lot in with Panasonic and Olympus is a safe tactic (Olympus's future being very uncertain); 3) that the fragmented marketing of M4/3 is something that can be improved on and controlled so that public (not just enthusiasts) know what it is and 4) that you think that Canon couldn't do it better on their own.

@howardroarkSaturated market? There is still a lot of room for growth in this arena. Which is why Canon made the EOS M. Sure it's got a bigger sensor than m4/3, but for all intents and purposes it's in the same general category. That being compact mirrorless interchangeable lens.

@meland1) m4/3 is not the best format for APS-C replacement, but it's a format that doesn't require lenses that are so niche that it only works on one body. Maybe someday Canon will offer two M bodies simultaneously an entry level and semi pro. Oh scratch the latter as per Mr. Maeda.2) All business decisions require risk. The EOS M being an example of one.3) The personal computing market is very fragmented. Computer manufacturers, printer manufacturers, monitor manufacturers all independently market their products quite successfullly. With standards in place, compatbililty is not a big issue. Look at how successsful Apple was when they were only compatible with other Apple products.4) Obviously.

Yes, the EOS M does have a larger sensor. "Same general category" is a subjective way to describe a relative concept. If that's true then anything with an APS-C is the same general category or anything with interchangeable lenses is in the same general category....or anything with an optical viewfiinder is in the same general category. I'm saying that you aren't the measure by which categories are judged. The EOS M is a very different in size, sensor, features from many other cameras just as the G1 X is. However, put a M4/3 sensor AND M4/3 mount on a Canon body and they would be joining a group of manufacturers that established that standard because they couldn't compete individually with the likes of Canon and Nikon. Yes, the whole standard was created out of desperation to quickly produce bodies and lenses from many different directions at once because the large makers would otherwise use their size and resources to reign supreme forever. They saw the opening and saturated it.

I believe the point that Mr. Maeda was trying to make in regard to the future of APS-C cameras is that they will be confined to the entry level thru enthusiast ($600 - $1200) mirrorless and DSLR space. While full frame models will occupy the price points above $1200 (enthusiast, semi-pro, etc.), thus eliminating the need for an APS-C 7D type. Still, there would be at least 2 EOS-M plus 2 Rebel and 2 60D or 70D (60D and 60Da) bodies based on APS-C to choose from until some time much further off when full frame DSLRs could invade the under $1400 price point. In other words, APS-C cameras will probably be around forever, but no longer marketed as semi-pro bodies. They would return to being the most affordable way to step up from a smaller sensor fixed lens point and shoot.

Mr. Maeda seems to miss the reason for the limited success of the EOS M. Canon was very late to the mirrorless party, and it allowed the 4/3 and NEX cameras to become established in the market. Furthermore, the first EOS M is designed for people who want a simple point & shoot experience - just the opposite of the kind of user who will swap lenses (and buy new ones with an M mount).

He's a smart guy actually and doesn't miss much. But there was a strategic decision to launch a fairly simple EOS M before the more enthusiast versions that will follow. This was because of the limited number of dedicated lenses available for the system and because this first model would enable some important feedback to be gathered before launching into models aimed more at enthusiasts. The camera has actually sold quite well in Asian markets but that highlights the differences in public tastes globally. One size rarely suits all whether it be in cars, fashion or cameras.

Sony also started off with the same approach and were very surprised when enthusiasts took to the NEX for the support of legacy lenses and smaller size. They re-thought the target market and now they have some quite reasonable enthusiast NEX cameras. Let's hope Canon does the same.

You're right (meland) that introducing the EOS M in a simple form was a strategic decision. And you do see them on the store shelves in Asia - I was there two weeks ago, poking around camera shops. It was also a strategic decision to wait a long time before introducing a mirrorless APS-C camera, and that was a mistake. Many people (including me) who would have been Canon customers if Canon had been there earlier have gone elsewhere by now. No doubt Canon will offer a version aimed at enthusiasts and will develop a line of lenses, but Mr. Maeda shouldn't be surprised at the EOS M's slow start, given its delayed arrival. Now Canon has an uphill battle recovering lost market share in the mirrorless segment, a segment that will cut into DSLR sales. Going to FF is one way to build a barrier against the encroachment of mirrorless cameras into the enthusiast/prosumer market, but it's not a sure bet to succeed, given the higher cost of FF (and the potential to build a FF mirrorless.

I'd love it if people would stop looking at where a camera is on the Amazon popularity list. Not only is at a tiny slice of the electronics market, it is also the narrowest possible way to look at the camera. Canon is looking at their entire camera line up and how they compete with other brands AND with themselves. There have been car brands that put out so many models that they effectively compete with themselves, and at that point you're spending way too much money of different product lines to make way to small a volume of each model that overlaps with another. In other words, Canon is probably more concerned with how many cameras they have selling around the world in the top 100. In this respect, they've got all their bases covered. However, they are reaching the point where they may do more to capture imagination rather than strictly sales. The M and N are first steps, along with the 6D and G1 X.

The big problem Canon and Nikon are facing today is how they have multiple DSLR sensor sizes rather than 1 streamlined product. They were forced into providing the archaic 35mm sensor format due to the "bigger-is-better" ego-tripping from many photographers and prosumers.

Using common sense, one digital sensor size (1.5x APS-C) would have been fine for every type of DSLR, from entry level to professional. The difference in noise performance is marginal: one sensor generation provides a higher improvement than doubling the sensor size. Like this, Canikon could have designed high quality f/2 zooms and a high quality set of primes. The same bodies could have sported compact f/4 lenses to please everyone.

That boat has sailed, now Canikon have to defend both crop and full frame sensors, and the whole line up makes no sense.

Four thirds had a much smarter strategy here, and it's now paying off in micro four thirds...

Except that many photographers like the shallow depth of field that they were used to with 35mm film and wanted that look in digital and with the lenses they often already had. And if you believe M4/3's strategy is paying off perhaps you could explain how? Certainly their sales are currently nothing like those of FF + APS-C, although that could change.

Marginal differences don't mean unimportant differences, and marginal to you may not be marginal to me. I don't own a FF camera, but if they were cheap enough I'd jump at the chance. One sensor generation, without question, doesn't come close to matching going from APS-C to FF....in terms of noise and certainly and more importantly in terms of detail. M4/3 is just one more sensor size that attempts to strike a balance between cost and performance. You don't seem to understand that bigger can sometimes be better in certain regards despite being worse in terms of cost, which is only to say more expensive. What a foolish concept especially in the camera world to think one size fits all.

Nikon tried that same argument for almost a decade. Nobody needed full frame. $4000 pro cameras with APS-C and everything. Problem was that Canon was eating their lunch in the pro market with APS-H and FF cameras.

It shouldn't be an all or nothing here. There's room for both, I don't personally understand 4/3, but there's probably room for that as well.

But, the market for APS-C is going to be too large to ignore. There's just too many people that won't have any use for 4/3 or for a FF sensor for the semi-pro and pro lines to be discontinued at this point.

@Mike99999: Your comment would be logical, if the statements "one sensor generation provides a higher improvement than doubling the sensor size" would be true, BUT IS NOT. You could compare Canon 5DII with any current APSC sensor and they are still far behind in terms of detail vs. noise performance. These days is becoming evident that the future of DSLR is full frame (FF). They need only sell more units, this will drop prices substantially and APSC will be replaced by FF. I'm almost sure that FF will be in 1000-2000$ segment, if they sell more units. Maybe it could be even in the next generation. APSC DSLR segment could convert to APSC or u4/3 mirrorless (CSC), where is not needed the best sensor performance and is appreciated much smaller body/lens size. In next generations the PDAF of CSC focus will match DSLR tracking performance, EVF viewfinders will be always more near to optical OVF. ...and FF sensor is going also into mirrorless.

The problem I see is that there are a lot of people in the $1000-2000 price bracket that need/want pro features like weather-sealing, fast AF that can track, high frames-per-second, great viewfinder, etc. Sure the 6D came out at a 7D pricepoint, but it's essentially an entry level camera with a FF sensor. That's not going to meet the needs of say an amateur birder or a high-school sports photographer.

So saying FF will replace semi-pro APS-C only works if you can get a FF camera with pro features in the sub $2000 level. But then that kills the whole reason for the $4000+ cameras to exist. It won't happen. And 6D can never replace a 7D for most people.

The 5D3 only does 6fps and it cost roughly double what the 7D did/does. It's costs even more if you figure most action shooters like their telephoto lenses and now the crop factor makes them 62% as long.

But that illustrates the point perfectly, I was trying to make. Expensive, slower FF camera don't replace more affordable, faster APS-C cameras.

@TheDman - actually NO, I'd not buy FF as replacement for my 7d = APS-C offers a crucial reach advantage over FF when one is uising longer FLs lenses; Canon's decision to abandon APS-H format in their Pro-line is a huge mistake from the point of view of wildlife/action shooters !!

5D3 isn't a replacement for the 7D. The 7D has a much higher sensor density providing much appreciated reach for things such as wildlife photography. And while 6fps isn't bad it isn't 8fps and doesn't guarantee you'll get more than one ideal key frame in a sequence the way 8fps does, although it is good enough to do it at times and much better than 4fps or even 5fps.

We don't have to look very far back in the past to know that Canon sometimes misjudges the market. When the 1DIII was ready for replacement, Canon brought out another 1.3x crop camera, even though the full frame Nikon D3 was a huge success for Nikon and stole many sports photographer customers from Canon. Canon was unconvinced that full frame is good for sports but finally got the confirmation it needed 3 years later, when it belatedly brought out the 1D-X, just in time for the 2008 Olympics. Back then, Canon also refused to provide GPS connectivity to the camera body directly, even though semi-pro Nikon already had this feature for years. For now, not only is Canon not leading the market, it is reluctant to catch up with the competition until it is almost too late.

I note no camera maker ever had the idea - isnt' business made to earn money ? - to design a camera that could be upgradable. The 1970-80's where the years of disposable items (lighters, razors, cameras and so on) but why not making the 2010's the era of items that could be upgradables ? Your camera is too slow ? Change of image processor. The sensor is too old ? Have a new one... That way, camera makers could get some more money to make a living without having to produce unrestly new now-super-complicated models with the bad results we can see far too often.

This 'concept' has been discussed many times over the years at Canon and I'm sure at other photo companies as well. You wouldn't like the cost that the upgradable 'modules' would have to be in order for Canon / Nikon / Sony / etc. to remain in business. As an example have a look at high end audio where this business model does exist.

Like "green energies" were not competitive enough against oil until recently, it's just a matter of costs. Selling "whole cameras" has been a good business for a long time because at first they were very expensive (the good old days of "made in Japan" cameras) then more affordable when they came to be made in low salaries/costs countries. Yet, as costs go up and up the time has maybe come to find another business model.

Nowadays, people want customizable and upgradable items, that's an economic (for seller as well as for buyers) + ecological necessity, and with the daily updating of our computers it's become in a sort a way of life.

That depends on the market you are talking about. The enthusiasts who build their own do plan for and upgrade the components of their system. I do agree that for the average person leasing a new Dell every 3-5 years they are disposable.

tkbslc is right. Computers are moving towards the 'disposable' category. Phones and tablets as well. Sure some components are replaceable (just like camera body components), but most are not upgradeable. Just look at all the glue they use in newer Apple products in lieu of screws. Sure it makes the product smaller, but certainly prevents it from being repairable/upgradeable.

The Apple ][e was "upgradable," so long as you could live with 64K RAM, low res graphics, 128kb floppies, and a 300bps modem.

Arguably, every consumer electronic items made these days is disposable. You'd not want to upgrade a CRT TV. New computers cost less than their predecessors and pack more punch. To upgrade old hardware or systems begs all sorts of software compatibility issues. We change car tires and oil, but to replace an old engine costs plenty without rejuvenating other things that age.

Upgrading a sensor might be nice, but it's not a very powerful feature vs. a new camera. New cameras typically include new features - GPS, hybrid focusing systems, peak focusing assistance, wifi... The list goes on. You can add new features to a desktop computer because it has a standard bus into which you plug in a wide range of cards, but engineering a standard bus into the confined space of a camera would be quite a task. And even with a standard bus, desktop PC's become obsolete when faster memory and new processors are developed. And all of those constraints leave out the technology changes like mirrorless cameras that change the whole design of the camera body.

@acidic. I was talking about the enthusiast market which almost exclusively use PCs that are entirely upgradable and mostly self built from individual components. Apple has never really made computers they expected or wanted the end user to upgrade so they are a poor example.

I have the Canon S95 and the Sony RX100. I am very impressed with the one-inch sensor in the RX100. I don't think consumers need anything bigger. But Canon with their make-it-all-ourselves strategy and their outdated facility probably can't make a one-inch sensor that's as good as the Sony one or the Nikon sensor outsourced to APTINA.

OK for a 70D but no mention of a 7D replacement? Not surprising. The low end pro Canon 7D/Nikon D300 market has gone full frame

Fuji has done something close in the past. The problem is that a bigger sensor means bigger lens and then you approach the size and cost of a DSLR anyway. So it kind of kills all the advantages of a fixed lens camera.

I agree with mpgxsvcd, Masaya Maeda should be fired now!The statement about the doubtful future of the APS-C is irresponsible.With the improvements in sensor technology, this format is still the best compromise for quality, bokeh and low light.What about the hundred of thousands EF-S lenses out there?The EOS-7D should have been ready before Xmas.His comments about the Sony RX-100 are ridiculousAn RX-100 lookalike with a better hand grip and a little longer, wide zoom made by Canon will conquer a large share of the serious enthusiast market as the ideal take anywhere, or second camera.Let's keep in mind that with a good in-camera panorama feature, a really short wide angle is not a must anymore.Shame on you Canon, you are letting your constituency down!

Fired for telling the truth? He did not say that APS-C is doubtful, just that semi-pro APS-C cameras have a doubtful future. Think about it, there really isn't much demand for an APS-C body costing $1700 if an entry level full frame is $2100 and will no doubt fall in the future. There will still be plenty of APS-C models, but they will be entry level. I do disagree that there is no market between APS-C and 1/2.3. The smart camera makers will create a new market using sensors larger than those found in cell phones but smaller than APS-C. Those who are bean counters and try to sell cameras with puny sensors to maximize profit will end up with warehouses full of unsold cameras.

Tell that to Panasonic and Olympus. I guarantee Canon would want the Micro Four Thirds market share back if they could have it. And yes almost of the market share M4/3s has was stolen from Canon. Sony, Fuji, Samsung, and Nikon all have options that compete with m4/3s so their users had a choice to stay with them.

Canon's mirrorless solutions were not even appealing to their loyal customers. I have no doubt that they could make a mirrorless APS-C solution that would steal that market share back. However, I don't believe they will produce that solution fast enough.

The only semi-pro dSLR with APS-C sensors that Canon currently offers is the 7D. Okay, if you insist, then let's throw the 60D in their as well (though I wouldn't consider it semi-pro by any means). Meanwhile, there are 4 or 5 entry level Rebel offerings, all with APS-C, and all perfectly compatible with EF-S lenses.

Fired for chasing off a large chunk of Canon's historic fanbase, the people who need and use long lenses. It's been a while since I went to a baseball game, but typically out of like 20 or so photogs, you only see one of them who is sporting Nikon gear.

Not to mention other people like nature and wildlife photogs that need the extra reach. If I have to replace my L with something else, there's little or no reason to stick with Canon. As they've just flushed my investment in their system down the drain.

So yes, fired is the appropriate action unless he quickly backs off and keeps at least 1 proper pro APS-C sensor based body for those that need it.

I've never been so depressed by eight paragraphs as this press release. I wonder if a 1/2.3 sensor was used to shoot his press photo above. My advice to Canon: Make 1 P&S, make 1 entry aps-c, 1 "pro" aps-c, 1 entry FF, 1 pro FF, 1 high end FF. And, a few efs-L lenses would breathe huge life into the aps-c "pro" market.

Sure thing meland. I've seen and experienced far more depressing things in my life and I'm sure there are more to come. But I guess the tongue-in-cheek was lost on you. Yet I stand by the fact that such a boring say and do nothing press release accomplished little than to make me yawn.

It reminds me when Canon told the day was coming fast when the DSLR would be replaced by a sort of digicam with a super-high density of image that would make everybody be able to choose a posteriori at home which image to freeze and crop. The prototype looked like a hairdryer...

Oh, well ! I've just found it back, remember what I'm talking about everybody ? Here: http://tinyurl.com/b4vmfk4

Why would police want to finesse crime scene shots? What judge would admit evidence that selects what one side wants seen and blurs out the rest? That would be justice blinded, rather than blind justice.

That Canon will continue to rehash the Rebel and 7D line without ever actually making it better. That they will produce new cameras that have focusing issues when their older cameras really weren't that bad for focusing.

That there really isn't a need to upgrade to another Canon camera over moving to a different camera make.

'Once upon a time, when the world was young and the animals could speak, there was a tiny wee chick called Chicken Licken. Now it happened one day that fluffy, yellow Chicken Licken was grubbing about in her favourite patch, when an acorn fell, p-l-o-m-p, on her little tail.'Oh no, said Chicken Licken, 'the sky is falling down! Help, I must go and warn the king.'So she set off on her busy little feet, and after a while she met her great friend Henny Penny.'Well, well, if it isn't Chicken Licken,' said Henny Penny.'Where are you off to in such a hurry?''Quick, help, help, Henny Penny.The sky is falling down! I must go and warn the king.''I see,' said Henny Penny. 'And how can you be so sure that the sky is falling down?'.....'

Chicken Licken's story is so convincing that Henny Penny goes along to warn the king, too... as do a number of others on the way.......including Cocky Locky, Ducky Daddles and Goosey Loosey.

And, at the end, Canon will end up like Nokia: Lost in their own business... Just one logical thinking: in the past, that photo-tables (or something) that photographers used to make photos was very big. Does todays sensors became even bigger or maybe smaller? What about statement of some past CEO, for example in 1900's: Photo-tables (sensors) in future will be 1 x 2 METERS! Great! (I just bought Sigma 8-16 mm for my 60D. How stupid that was... What a sad day...)

I can't help thinking that this press release has hurt them more than help them.

It is like telling someone what cards you have in poker in order to intimidate them. However, all of the other people are smart enough to just not say anything and wait for you to throw all-in before committing to their strategy.

I wouldn't be surprised if the fact that the low-end of the camera market completely vanished in a few year's time has hurt Canon most of all.

But still they produce more cameras than anyone. I think they sell just under 2x as many as Nikon. It's fascinating how in a decade digital photography advanced so quickly, embedded itself in our lives, and then has been transformed by social media and a mobile lifestyle - all the while Canon's been the leader.

Just the fact that a head of Canon has to make a press release that says "We know it doesn't look like we know what we are doing but we will show you in the end" is scary.

They are aware that everyone is dissatisfied with their recent announcements and yet they seem to think that "staying the course" is the right thing to do.

What they need to do is make a camera that is truly revolutionary and not just different. Canon absolutely dominates the Astro Photography market. They even make a very expensive camera(60Da) that is specifically designed for that market.

However, most people in that field are content to use the T2i or T1i that is several generations old and even more generations behind what is out today.

They can't steal back the market share that Sony(Nex) and Micro Four Thirds have stolen from them because they can't even convince enough of their loyal users to upgrade from what they already have.

"they can't even convince enough of their loyal users to upgrade from what they already have."Right ! I was thinking about buying the 6D but the product didn't convinced me (saddly, a lot of people on the web share the same feelings toward this camera that should have been something revolutionnary). Yet, as I've given up the idea to buy the D600 too because of its too many problems of sensors, I'm like a lot of people now, asking to myself what's going on and what to do next.

I hear you! A decade or so ago Canon was really very innovative in DSLR technologies, but Nikon and probably even other manufacturers have made leaps and bounds in many areas, and Nikon's DSLR line looks much more appealing nowadays.

If not for my heavy investment in Canon lenses, if I were to start today, I would seriously consider Nikon.

This statement "The answer may change, but 1/2.3" is the answer at the moment" tells us exactly why Canon is struggling. Tiny sensor cameras are completely replaceable with phones, but their pride won't let them admit that they are lost in the weeds.

It seems to me that lately the once great Japanese designers are suffering at the corporate level with the blind pride of their aging CEOs.

Exactly. The affordable small sensor, fixed lens compact, consumer camera is at the end of it's life cycle. The people who would traditionally buy these cameras are moving to using their cell phones. The market for dedicated cameras is rapidly changing to be exclusively the enthusiast/semi-pro and pro users who self identify as Photographers and who will not be satisfied with such tiny sensors.

The average person who just want to take snaps of friends and family is already using smartphones and other integrated devices more than dedicated cameras. The future of fixed lens compacts is cameras like the RX100 and G1X that have larger sensors that appeal to enthusiasts as they are going to be the only ones buying dedicated cameras instead of just using a smart phone in a decade or two.

The problem with full frame is the size of the lenses. No one except people getting paid to shoot are going to put up with the size and cost of full frame lenses. The camera body size and price is almost irrelevant when compared to the lens size and cost.

"The answer may change, but 1/2.3" is the answer at the moment. Users want to shoot at greater distances and want to get better photos in low light - these are the needs. There will always be a gap between smartphones and compact cameras in those respects."

This statement could eventually be Canon's downfall. The consumer wants a super zoom compact camera. However, what they need is an ultra fast lens compact camera with a modest zoom like the LX7.

Eventually the average user will realize that a super zoom camera is a terrible camera for taking pictures with its super slow lens. They will either switch to camera with a faster lens or they will just give up and use their smart phone. Either way Canon won't be one of their choices unless they change their philosophy.

indeed: after the first few days of playing w/ his 600+ gr. 50x hyperzoom, shooting birds 2 blocks away (sunny day only) and a few shaky videos @ 1000+ mm, Canon's hypothetical user will look for a small (4x lighter) and FAST camera, likely a 24-100 P&S zoom with less noise and faster AF.

There is a market for 20x zoom compacts and 50x zoom bridge cams, and those can only be conceivably served by 1/2.3" sensors. Don't write that size off yet, because the small sensors can economically be made at the cutting edge of technology, while FF and APS-C are made on 20-year-old technologies with much lower efficiencies, and still are expensive.But, as sensor resolution grew, 1/2.3" outgrew their diffraction limits some time ago. Real resolution between 18 mpix and 12 mpix does not grow, so digital zoom is also limited. The only solution is to grow sensor, and not by a little like 1/1.7" (which is not worth a separate R&D and production line over 1/2.3"), but to at least 1". RX100 is a perfect example, where low-light performance is as good as APS-C with kit zooms, while size and bright-light zoom (with digital) is as good (or almost as good) as pocketable compacts. Sony earned their $650.

Canon's biggest problem is that they refuse to acknowledge that Micro Four Thirds even exists. They sit around and simply rest on their reputation alone.

The Canon T4i is so far behind the Panasonic GH3 and Olympus EM5 but no one knows about Micro Four Thirds because of poor publicity until now. That is changing quickly and it will eventually force Canon to make changes to their philosophies.